Guess? IP Holder L.P. and Guess?, Inc. v. guanjing and daziran
Claim Number: FA1408001576019
Complainant is Guess? IP Holder L.P. and Guess?, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by David J. Steele of Christie, Parker & Hale, LLP, California, USA. Respondent is guanjing and daziran (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <guessjeansoutlet.com>, registered with eName Technology Co., Ltd.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and, to the best of his knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on August 20, 2014; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on August 20, 2014. The Complaint was received in English and Chinese.
On August 22, 2014, eName Technology Co., Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <guessjeansoutlet.com> domain name is registered with eName Technology Co., Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. eName Technology Co., Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the eName Technology Co., Ltd. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On August 29, 2014, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 18, 2014 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@guessjeansoutlet.com. Also on August 29, 2014, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On September 24, 2014, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Language of the Proceedings
The Registration Agreement is written in Chinese, thereby making the language of the proceedings in Chinese. Pursuant to Rule 11(a), the Panel determines that the language requirement has been satisfied through the Chinese language Complaint and Commencement Notification, and, absent a Response, determines that the remainder of the proceedings may be conducted in English.
A. Complainant
Complainant uses GUESS to promote its clothing and apparel. The mark is registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"). The domain name is confusingly similar to the GUESS mark.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <guessjeansoutlet.com> domain name. Respondent has never been known by the <guessjeansoutlet.com> domain name. Respondent is using the <guessjeansoutlet.com> domain name to promote its counterfeit GUESS goods.
Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Guess? IP Holder L.P. and Guess?, Inc., uses GUESS to promote its clothing and apparel. The mark is registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No. 1,433,022, registered Mar. 17, 1987).
Respondent, guanjing and daziran, registered the <guessjeansoutlet.com> domain name on July 16, 2014.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
Complainant has rights in the GUESS mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration with the USPTO, See W.W. Grainger, Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1334458 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 24, 2010) (stating that “the Panel finds that USPTO registration is sufficient to establish these [Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)] rights even when Respondent lives or operates in a different country.”).
Respondent’s <guessjeansoutlet.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the GUESS mark. The addition of the terms “jeans” and “outlet” does nothing to distinguish the domain name as the terms merely reference a location where GUESS goods might be purchased. The addition of the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) does not differentiate the domain name from the GUESS mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Mead Johnson & Company, LLC v. noom kung, FA 1521731 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2013) (holding that the addition of multiple terms, both generic and descriptive, do not negate a finding of confusing similarity).
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name).
The WHOIS information lists “guanjing and daziran” as the registrant of record for the disputed domain name. The Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known as the <guessjeansoutlet.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Respondent is using the <guessjeansoutlet.com> domain name to promote its counterfeit GUESS goods. The domain name resolves to a website where the GUESS mark is used to promote a variety of apparel. Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent’s demonstrated intent to divert Internet users seeking Complainant’s website to a website of Respondent and for Respondent’s benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also Keihin Corp. v. Youli Ltd., FA 1106190 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 18, 2007) (finding no rights and legitimate interests when the respondent sold counterfeit versions of the complainant’s products in competition with the complainant’s business).
The <guessjeansoutlet.com> domain name resolves to a website dedicated to the sale of apparel under the GUESS banner. The offering of counterfeit goods creates a disruption of Complainant’s GUESS business in Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) bad faith. See DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 28, 2005) (“Respondent is appropriating Complainant’s mark to divert Complainant’s customers to Respondent’s competing business. The Panel finds this diversion is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”).
Complainant further claims Respondent is profiting from a likelihood Internet users will be confused as to Complainant’s association with the goods Respondent is selling. The sale of confusingly similar goods or counterfeit merchandise, creates a Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith likelihood of confusion. See H-D Michigan, LLC v. Ross, FA 1250712 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 23, 2009) (determining that the respondent’s selling of counterfeit products creates the likelihood of confusion as to the complainant’s affiliation with the disputed domain name and allows the respondent to profit from that confusion). Therefore, Respondent has registered and uses the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights when registering the <guessjeansoutlet.com> domain name. Therefore, Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See also Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler, FA 744444 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2006) (finding bad faith where the respondent was "well-aware of the complainant's YAHOO! mark at the time of registration”).
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <guessjeansoutlet.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: October 8, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page